Bibliographic record
Abstract
ERYTHMELUS Enock, 1909 (Figs 130–135) Erythmelus Enock, 1909: 454. Type species: Erythmelus goochi Enock, 1909, by monotypy. Eurythmelus Ogloblin, 1934: 243 (lapsus). See Huber et al. (2020) for generic synonyms and their type species. Diagnosis. Head in lateral view with gena short (Fig. 135), almost absent, so head often appearing thin; face with toruli distinctly triangular (Fig. 130a); mandibles in both sexes reduced to small stubs, without teeth (Fig. 130a) and maxillae lengthened (Fig. 130b), presumably replacing the mandibles in function; antenna with 6 funicle segments (Fig. 131), rarely only 5; metanotum with dorsellum triangular (Fig. 133) and slightly overhanging propodeum (Fig. 135); propodeum medially with longitudinal sulcus (Fig. 133); gaster in lateral view with hypopygium long, extending posteriorly at least to apex of gaster (Fig. 135). Remarks. Erythmelus belongs to the Anaphes group of genera, a rather poorly defined group (Lin et al. 2007) of two genera. The propodeum has a median sulcus in both genera. Other features, e.g., the greatly reduced mandibles, suggest perhaps a closer relationship to some taxa in the Anagrus group of genera. Neotropical hosts. Hemiptera: Miridae, Tingidae. Important references. Triapitsyn et al. (2007), Triapitsyn (2008), Guzmán-Larralde et al. (2015).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".